C YETHRAPPA Vs. D YUSUF KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) these two civil revision petitions are preferred against the common order dated 10th December 1982 passed in h.r.c. mis. Nos. 688/82 and 726/1982 by the ix additional small causes judge, Bangalore city and are referred to a division bench as they involve a question of law of general importance.

(2.) the civil revision petition no.728/1986 was also referred to a division bench along with these civil revision petitions; but it has been separately disposed of without deciding the questions of law involved in these civil revision petitions. The reasons for referring these petitions to a division bench are contained in the order dated 21-2-1986 passed in c.r.p. No. 728/1986. 2.1. It may be relevant to notice that the respondents in c.r.ps. 52 and 53 of 1983 were the tenants of the non- residential premises bearing No. 15. The petitioner was the land of the aforesaid premises. He filed eviction petitions in h.r.c. 64/75 and 111/75 against respondents-1 and 2 respectively for possession of the schedule premises under Section 21(1)(j) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') for the immediate purpose of demolition and for erecting a new building i.e., new shops in place of the premises sought to be demolished.

(3.) the respondents-tenants resisted the petitions. However, before evidence could be recorded in the case, the parties compromised and a compromise petition was filed before the court on 24-6-1978. The compromise filed and recorded in both the cases was similarly worded and it was as follows : "1. The petitioner has filed the above petition bn the ground that the premises is reasonably and bonafide required by the petitioner for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction under Section 21(1)(j) of the K.R.C. Act, 1961. 2. At the intervention of the wellwishers of the parties, the parties haye compromised the matter as follows : (a) the respondent is granted oneyear's time to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the property to enable him to demolish and put up new structure in its place. (b) the petitioner has agreed to reconstruct the petition schedule premises within six months from the date of respondents delivering possession of the premises referred to in the schedule on the terms and conditions regarding the rate of rents to be paid mutually agreed upon. If the parties do not agree regarding the rate of rent to be paid, the matter would be referred to competent authority for fixing the rents. (c) if the petitioner fails to demolish and put up reconstruction within six months after taking delivery of the premises from the respondent the respondent is entitled to seek re-delivery of the schedule premises in whatever condition it maybe and re-occupy the same.